- From: Erik van der Poel <erikv@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:51:15 -0800
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Again, there isn't just one output. In addition to outputs like the HTTP Request-URI, there are DOM interfaces like pathname. URL processing can be divided into parsing and resolution. The DOM interfaces can be used to access the output of the parsing phase, including, in the case of the DOM href interface, the absolute URL that was produced by resolving a relative URL against a base URL. It appears that many of the major browsers return Unicode in the DOM interfaces, even when the host was originally in Punycode (in the HTML). How much of this should be in the HTML spec, and how much in the DOM spec? This is also a "split", as Ian calls it. The output of the resolution phase includes such things as the HTTP Request-URI. The major HTML implementations all convert the ?query part back to the original character encoding of the HTML before placing it in the HTTP request. How much of this should be in the HTML spec, and how much in the IRIbis spec? This is part of Ian's "split" question. I think HTML5 can come up with all of these spec pieces faster than IRIbis can. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I have seen how long these things take in the IDNAbis work. One of the core disagreements there was that one camp wanted all "pre-processing" to be performed in the UI, while the other camp wanted HTML implementations to continue to pre-process domain names in hrefs. I suspect that the same camps will reappear in the IRIbis work, thereby delaying it. Erik
Received on Friday, 1 January 2010 00:51:47 UTC